The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-12-20
Duty of the Republican Party.

Washington Special.
General Thomas NJ. Browne, of Indiana, long
a member of the committee on ways and MEANS
who is credited with moderate views in regard
to the protective tariff upon being asked for his
present opinion Of what Republican revenue and
tariff policy should be. replied with the follow
ing interesting statement:
THE time has come. in my opinion, when the
Republican party should adopt meiho d5 of its
own for sbe reduction of the revenues AT Chi
cago it pledged itself to correct the inequalities
of the tariff and to reduce the surplus. True,
it cannot now, being in the minority. put any
measure into law, hut i. prove its ability
and courage by nesting promptly and fairly this
important question. In the mast it has not
skulked the gravesr of responsibilities. and the
trophies IT bears SO proudly upon its
shields to-day were won by its wise and
fearless craftsmanship in dealing with
questions infinitely more embarrassing
than any growing ont of this revenue problem.
1t seems to me that this duty is less difficult
than some are inclined TO think. The general
policy of the party Is clearly outlined. and to
It there is entire upapimity. No Republican
thinks of Withdrawing his allegiance from the
policy of projection of making any change
that will impair the pFotective character of our
tariff legislation. All agree that in correcting
the inequalities of the tariff such methods should
be employed only will relieve the taxpayer
without injury to the great productive interests
of the country. Now we have but to formulate
the details of the legislation by which to remedy
the iDfrmities of our revenue system. keeping
in view always the interests of our great indus
tries. That to do this will prove difficult and
en- mbarrassing is why should shuu
il. The tariff and internal revenue systems
the creatures Of Republican statesmanship. or
dained when to avert the greatest of national
calsmities immense revenues were necessary.
Since then important changes have occurred in
trade and economic conditions, sug-
gesting necessary notifications of these laws.
They doubtless need judcious revision. They
have been revised in no important particular
save by the Republican party. In 1866 the In
rernal revenue tax yielded 5000 2G6 Sl3, the past
year but $116. GOO. 600, and this reduction is
wholly due to Republican legislation. The only
revision the tariff laws had was at the
hands Of Republican Congress. But the Ques-
tion is, what should be done by way Of amend
meut Of the revenue lawsl 1t is almost univer-
sally conceded that collections in excess
of our necessary expenditures by some S75 O0O,
O00 annually, and that this sum should be saved
to the people in some way or other. But howl
The President, in his anxiety to strike down
vicious and inequitaoe' protection, insists that
the internal system shall 60 on uploadiDg Its
Sis, 600, 900 annually into the treasury. Shall
this tax go ont When the President wrote
his message had he forgotten the platform upon
which he was nominatedl That declared the
internal revenue system war tax and said
that as long as it was continued the money de-
rived therefro should be sacredly devoted to
the relief of the people from the remaining bur
deus OF the war, and be made fund to defray
the expense of the care and comfort OF worthy
soldiers disabled in the line of duty in the
wars of the Republic, and for the payment oe
such pensions Congress may from time to
time grant Is the President and his party still
patriotic purposesf If SO. We might safely agree
to the continuance of this tax. We will see.
The Democracy do not intend to continue the
internal revenue system as iS ia 1t can't do it.
The whole party in North Carolina and Virginia
and sections of it in Missouri. Maryland, Ken
tucky and other parts of the South protest Wig
orously against the Presidents policy. Already
the Post. the Presidents organ here. displays
the distress signal and comedies a reduction of
twenty millions or more on the tobacco tax The
majority in Congress will have to repeal or ma
a
always done in making any tax reduction what
ever. Personally, l favor this tax, and il the
proposition to reduce il is to stand alone. will
not assent to it. For one. do not believe that
the maintenance of protection is in any measure
dependents on the repeal of this tax but il put in
q measure embodying some substantial relief to
the mass of the people. such as the repeal of the
sugar duty, the Republican party may with pro-
prety relieve tobacco from all taxes
cherootS and cigars. / would draw the line
there.
Viewing the tax on liquor from a purely
revenue standpoint can see but point at
which II be can safely touched. Quantities OF
distilled soirits-how much do not know-are
used wholly in the arts. Those who thus use
them are guilty of no crime. and have imposed
no burden on the State Might not persons
using spirits in harmless and useful pursuits,
under wise regulations. have drawback
to the extent of the taxes paidl Upon liquors
used as beverage there should be no abate-
ment
..But may not soIrevise the tariff laws as to
sufficiently reduce our annual revenues without
1mp pairing their efficiency instruments of
protectiou9 I would make the effort would
begin by saving $50, 000, 900 yearly on sugar. Last
year the revenue sugar, moasses etc..
reached the enormous sum OF SOS, 600 00O and
this income is increasing at the of 81 000 600
TO sc. 000. 600 annually. Our people consume
over 2 500 000 600 pounds each year. and only
about 300. 600. 900 pounds of this is produced in
the United States. Our sugar production ia
nos increasing, while the consumption is tt
absurd to claim that the people ought to pay
this monstrous tax 10 protect some three hun
dred sugar-planters 10 single State in the pro-
ductiop Of Q commodity Of an annual yalua of